POSTS MADE TO THIS FORUM ARE THE SOLE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE AUTHOR AND DO NOT NECESSARILY REFLECT THE VIEWS OF PILOTS FOR 911 TRUTH
FOR OFFICIAL PILOTS FOR 9/11 TRUTH STATEMENTS AND ANALYSIS, PLEASE VISIT PILOTSFOR911TRUTH.ORG

Last week a hacker -- or, perhaps more likely, an inside "whistleblower" -- leaked huge amounts of data from the Climate Research Unit at East Anglia University in Britain. The leaks demonstrated that many "insider" scientists were conspiring to block publication of dissenting views in peer-reviewed journals, while suggesting that there was data-fudging, and deliberate evasion of Freedom Of Information requests, perhaps even including deliberate destruction of data.Worse still, the computer models themselves appear to be jerry-rigged and deeply flawed. As Declan McCullagh reported on the CBS News website, independent programmers were appalled:“As the leaked messages, and especially the HARRY_READ_ME.txt file, found their way around technical circles, two things happened: first, programmers unaffiliated with East Anglia started taking a close look at the quality of the CRU's code, and second, they began to feel sympathetic for anyone who had to spend three years (including working weekends) trying to make sense of code that appeared to be undocumented and buggy, while representing the core of CRU's climate model.“One programmer highlighted the error of relying on computer code that, if it generates an error message, continues as if nothing untoward ever occurred. Another debugged the code by pointing out why the output of a calculation that should always generate a positive number was incorrectly generating a negative one. A third concluded: ‘I feel for this guy. He's obviously spent years trying to get data from undocumented and completely messy sources.’“Programmer-written comments inserted into CRU's Fortran code have drawn fire as well. The file briffa_sep98_d.pro says: ‘Apply a VERY ARTIFICAL correction for decline!!’ and ‘APPLY ARTIFICIAL CORRECTION.’ Another, quantify_tsdcal.pro, says: ‘Low pass filtering at century and longer time scales never gets rid of the trend - so eventually I start to scale down the 120-yr low pass time series to mimic the effect of removing/adding longer time scales!’”None of this inspires confidence. As Megan McArdle noted on the Atlantic Monthly's website: "The IPCC report, which is the most widely relied upon in policy circles, uses this model to estimate the costs of global warming. If those costs are unreliable, then any cost-benefit analysis is totally worthless. Obviously, this also casts their reluctance to conform with FOI requests in a slightly different light.”Yes, they're acting as if they've got something to hide. But the establishment's response has been to ignore the problem and hope it goes away.Climate Czar Carol Browner responded: "I'm sticking with the 2,500 scientists. These people have been studying this issue for a very long time and agree this problem is real."The problem is that the "2,500 scientists" she refers to were relying on data and models that, it now appears, may have been fake. Garbage in, garbage out. Plenty of scientists believed in Piltdown Man, too, for a while.Big media are downplaying the problem too -- while Declan McCullagh has done great reporting on CBS's website, the network's broadcast coverage has been quite different. Likewise, the New York Times and Washington Post, while covering the matter, have downplayed its significance.It seems clear that the Obama administration, and the folks in traditional media, think this is a story better ignored.It won't work. While Big Media folks ignore the story, the alternate media are all over it...

Climate Czar Carol Browner responded: "I'm sticking with the 2,500 scientists. These people have been studying this issue for a very long time and agree this problem is real."The problem is that the "2,500 scientists" she refers to were relying on data and models that, it now appears, may have been fake. Garbage in, garbage out. Plenty of scientists believed in Piltdown Man, too, for a while.

This seems to be very much is a question of scientists vs "interested parties". Given the timing, this exchange was undoubtedly leaked to provide backing for a political agenda. I too would back the "2500 scientists", and reject "The problem" that gets mentioned, as "The problem" is no such thing. It has been worded to impress the majority of readers who will accept the line and conclusion with little added thought.

a ) "fake" is far too strong, even in worst-case - if you wanted to truly fake it, you'd just claim results without spending years trying to model anything! "Inaccurate" or "skewed" would be better, and there is nothing odd about inaccurate models as models are just that: imperfect simplifications of complex systems that can be used to get useful data or facts. But this is an article by someone who wants the reader to share a prejudged case.

b ) "Garbage in, garbage out" is meaningless. It doesn't describe the supposed problem here at all. What is suspect is the model that is bringing together perfectly valid datasets. There are hundreds of independent datasets and studies, some of which produced data that could be fed into this contentious model. What went "in" is certainly not garbage (at least not deliberately so) and many studies would be able to tell their own story without use of the model. The model had, I understand, a predictive remit. Yes, it might churn out bad results, but that doesn't affect the validity of the data that goes in.

c ) We have zero context for any of the leaked data. Further, there is a big jump between "artificial" corrections in the model added to skew modelled results, rather than, for example, being thought at the time to be valid to - say - compensate for other approximations within the model.

This is all very trial-by-media. Leave scientists to collect, collate and model the data as they know best, and leave the politicians to implement policy on the back of it. Keep Big Money, interest groups, and dinner-party know-all types as far out of the process as possible: they may be right, but by chance rather than by reasoned insight that ONLY scientists, by virtue of their studies, can have.

And even if "man-made" climate-change is complete nonsense, that still leaves us with the problem of coping with the effects of the warming (very few question that warming actually is occurring). And it still leaves us with an even bigger problem of what we're going to do when current fossil fuels start running out. Its not just electricity generation and transport that will be affected by scarce / absent supplies. But every industry that relies upon petrochemicals: plastics, foodstuffs and dyes, fabrication, pharmaceuticals, and anything else that requires raw materials sourced via organic synthesis.

Whether climate-change is "man-made" or not is very much a green herring.

I do. And I'm not alone by any means. It looks like the planet warmed through the last half of the 70's, the 80's and the 90's, but has stopped and if anything has been cooling a bit over the last several years. I refer you to the Argos ocean sensor system data for example. The non-existence of sun-spots of late indicates that a cooling trend may not only continue, but grow more pronounced.

QUOTE

Whether climate-change is "man-made" or not is very much a green herring.

Oh, I beg to differ there as well ... the veracity of the theory of man-made global warming is at the heart of the current push to tax the planet for carbon emmissions, and use these funds and the administration of their collection and use as an excuse to widen international governance. A very important issue, IMO. ... with all due respect.

Sure. Its just a view held by a rather small minority. This does not affect its validity per se, but you have to argue for a mass delusion (or conspiracy, I suppose) amongst the scientific community for ignoring or downplaying a (supposed) majority or significance of "no cooling" data. The reality is that, if you measure any complex system, you're going to get studies that are outliers, contrary observations, or measurements of conditions that are contrary to overall trends. Indeed, do enough studies and you're going to get some that are simply inaccurate through unrecognised systemic error. Consensus is going to be based upon the weight and perceived value of evidence, and current consensus is that warming is occurring. Doesn't mean the consensus view is correct, but science deals with likely outcomes, and its for the rest of us to act upon these "best guesses".

This little alleged scandal doesn't go anywhere near proving such a conspiracy for, even if there is a bias in rejecting "no warming" data for their models or publication in their journal, you'd have to show that such a bias is international and that the scientists who are spending their lives producing the "no warming" data are being individually ignored on a global scale. Further, if an expert reasons that, on the basis of their knowledge, some data is from bad or irrelevant research (whether it is contrary to their understanding or not), why shouldn't they reject it when it comes to inclusion in their modelling?

QUOTE

the veracity of the theory of man-made global warming is at the heart of the current push to tax the planet for carbon emmissions

Indeed. But whether this warming is man-made or not (or whether it is happening at all) is being used as the stated justification for a movement that is going to have to happen anyway (though the assessment of the urgency, and spending priorities might change a little). Such fuels / raw materials are a finite resource, and at some point in the nearish future, we're going to have to find alternatives. Reducing consumption of such fuels will extend the window to develop these alternatives. If you were designing a global system to reduce oil usage rather than combat "global warming", you'd be running a carbon tax-and-trade scheme also. You would still have massive investment into alternative generation schemes and general energy efficiency. You would still have a massive investment into biosynthesis of useful organic compounds. You would still have a massive investment into the recycling of useful materials.

From the point of view that stopping the global use of all fossil fuels overnight would have an unimaginably greater impact than raising global temperatures (and imposing the long-term effects of such a change) by - say - 5C overnight, thus whether global warming is man-made is very much a green herring. Popular focus is on the cause of a minor issue rather than the substance of a major one, but (thankfully) the necessary schemes to counter both are similar.

In covering their crime, climate scientists at the cru, have destroyed most of the historical raw weather station data, that they claim they have based their hockey stick charts upon, and such.

Although this looks really really bad, and is wrong in every way, they simply had to make room when they moved offices, and the raw data just took up too much space, for them, so they had most of it destroyed, ...or lost, ...or dumped.

The data were gathered from weather stations around the world and then adjusted to take account of variables in the way they were collected. The revised figures were kept, but the originals — stored on paper and magnetic tape — were dumped to save space when the CRU moved to a new building.

Indeed. But whether this warming is man-made or not (or whether it is happening at all) is being used as the stated justification for a movement that is going to have to happen anyway (though the assessment of the urgency, and spending priorities might change a little). Such fuels / raw materials are a finite resource, and at some point in the nearish future, we're going to have to find alternatives...

International Government and draconian global regulations aren't going to accomplish that, you need free market forces to provide alternatives.

sanders, i do believe trimble is a statist. they typically don't respond well to facts..try flattery, it works at the dmv. oh, and one other thing, never mention the fact that they aren't wearing any clothes.

You believe wrong ! imo the state should be as small as possible, allowing maximum freedoms for its citizens, whilst holding a socialist agenda as regards public services and the protection of its citizens from gross corporate interests. However for international action the state must take a robust role in negotiations on behalf of its citizens. I'll openly admit, for what its worth, that I think modern democracy is absolutely corrupted by the mass media and ingrained self-interest, and ought to be ditched (or tempered) in favour of a meritocracy. However what has all that got to do with GW?

QUOTE

they typically don't respond well to facts..try flattery,

QUOTE

International Government and draconian global regulations aren't going to accomplish that, you need free market forces to provide alternatives.

(in response to my justification of anti-GW measures being seen through irrespective of the veracity of GW, on account of fossil fuel resource limitations).

A free market will cause change as soon as it makes economic sense to do so. Regulation will enforce change sooner. I would argue that enforced global change is preferable, for two reasons:

a ) resources are not equally shared, and as they become increasingly scarce, "free market" conditions will increasingly favour the "haves" (and the "have the power to takes") to the detriment to the "have nots". This will create global tensions (hey, we've seen the US doing a couple of oil grabs already. So too, Russian control of gas exports as political tool over its old possessions and Europe last winter), and the countries least able to afford their own resources will also be least able to develop replacement technologies.

b ) it will provide more time to develop and refine the replacement "green" technologies. The more developed the technologies become, the more efficient they will be. This will ensure a smoother and cheaper transition from oil in the long-term.

If global business interests are under the same economic pressures via regulation, all remains fair. Ultimately, I think global solutions are required to global problems.

You believe wrong ! imo the state should be as small as possible, allowing maximum freedoms for its citizens, whilst holding a socialist agenda as regards public services and the protection of its citizens from gross corporate interests...

Here is where a lot of people turn left when they should keep going straight IMO. The promise that socialism or regulation provided by the government could ever protect its citizens from gross corporate interests is a fallacy ... gross corporate interests have been in control of very nearly every government in (at least the non-muslim) world at very nearly every period in history since corporations existed! Regulations are not written to protect citizens from corporate greed, that's merely the universal cover story - regulations are written to disadvantage businesses and corporations not in the inner circle, they are written to keep the competition of the biggest companies at bay. Of course no one can see this, we are all taught to believe that the government writes these regulations to protect us and maintain a level playing field ... but upon close inspection and a look at how the political and economic landscape in the US has shifted over time, it becomes clear that it is the opposite that is true.

Big corporations LIKE socialism. The proof is that America has been in the hands of the wealthy elite for a hundred years, during which time America has become more and more socialist.

The have's want to get rid of the have-nots, by taking away everything they have. Because, they figure, that the have-nots are now, or shortly will be, useless to them, and actually a possible threat, because the haves, are far, out numbered, by the have-nots.

so·cial·ism: political system of communal ownership: a political theory or system in which the means of production and distribution are controlled by the people and operated according to equity and fairness rather than market principles.

What we have in America has nothing to do with socialism, it is monopoly capitalism which is the inevitable evolution of capitalism itself. Free market principles and Capitalism are really opposites. that is why talk of the free market is a fantasy. As wealth accumulates in fewer hands so does it's influence on government and public institutions, who in turn provides an advantage to the most influential private enterprises. If government fails to ensure a level playing field then the process accelerates, as we have seen since deregulation started under the Reagan Presidency.

Regulation or deregulation cuts both ways, you could for example deregulate smaller business and regulate large corporation to create a more level paying field, the intent and how these thing are done should be examined on an individual basis, so automatically taking position for or against regulation is not pertinent.

Hey Andre. You know me pretty well, we agree on a lot of things, some things not so much so. You make good points, and maybe I tossed out the term "socialism" with regard to the US too quickly. Yes, yes, I agree, we have monopoly capitalism, or crony capitalism, or some call it Fascism.

This gets to the real jist of it:

QUOTE

Free market principles and Capitalism are really opposites. that is why talk of the free market is a fantasy. As wealth accumulates in fewer hands so does it's influence on government and public institutions, who in turn provides an advantage to the most influential private enterprises. If government fails to ensure a level playing field then the process accelerates, as we have seen since deregulation started under the Reagan Presidency.

Is that true? It may well be. The founding founders of the US, who tried to limit the size of government and make sound money the law of the land hoped that it wasn't. Looking at the state of things now, it seems their dream was short lived in historical terms.

To add, there are many socialist programs which have taken root in America though, beginning with Social Security, Medicare, government backed student loans, Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac ... and we keep moving in that direction as fast as the congressional leaders and CFR sanctioned presidents can accomplish it. Government aquisition of AIG, GM etc. under Obama case in point. I live in a fairly socialistic country, and am not against community-driven socialism (communal gardens, local schools, etc., there is a lot of good that can be done when people pool their resources)... not in theory nor in practice - what I am leery of is socialism when it is proffered by the ultra-rich who just want to stamp out liberty and control everything, and they always do it in sneaky ways, i.e. by promising things like free health care.